Topic: Why do you believe God exists? - page 24. (Read 7902 times)

Indeed, one would be hard pressed to test your belief that there is no scientific proof for God. If your belief could be tested, you would have changed your belief long ago, to one that scientifically proves that God exists.

As for science proving the Great Flood of Noah's day to be false, just the opposite is true. And regarding the ark, originally the big ships of many present day nations were patterned after the basic ark pattern, because that was simpler than trying to invent something that would float properly.

Much of what is said in the Bible is there to be believed. But some of it has been proven to exist... just to show that the rest of the Bible is factual as well. So faith is built on fact and proof, both in the Bible, as well as the science religion.

No it's not my ''belief''. A belief cannot be tested, measuring the age of the earth or the universe can be tested with several different methods and they all sync and give accurate results. The flood can be scientifically proven to be false just, the ark, etc etc. Those are not beliefs. You have beliefs. You believe everything that is said in the bible is true although you have no evidence and you certainly have no test to prove god.

The primary reason I post on religion is because I know this is a hostile forum on the topic and the intensity of the subsequent grilling helps me refine my thoughts.

For example af_newbie successfully highlighted that my first claim is dependent on the a priori assumption of a mathematical and logical universe.

That assumption was not as clearly specified in my Argument for God as it should have been so I added another sentence to make it clearer.

These exchanges are useful which is the only reason I spend time on them. BadDecker is looking to save your soul. He is probably a better person then I because I really don't care what you believe or do with your life.

I follow where logic takes me. Logic points to God.


You clearly didn't understand my argument. It is not a proof of God. I have said that several times.

Instead my argument shows that the belief in God is logically sound and that it is likely necessary for higher level coordination and cooperation. It is a powerful rebuttal to those who foolishly insist that a belief in God is illogical or irrational. It is not a proof nor does it replace the necessity for faith.

If you have to believe in an entity erroneously called "God" {a fictitious construction reflecting human imagination}, it directly implies that you do not have sufficient knowledge; as many many discoveries have, and are still being made even to this day - scientific breakthrouhs if you will.

The plethora of interconnecting 'revelationary' knowledge bases have compelled a growing multitude of (mind you), previously believing "believers" (in many cases), to permanently and steadfastly cast asunder any and all iotas and tittles of these enslaving ideological crappy institutional mindsets, inflicted upon humanity for many generations.

When you do not know (sufficiently), you will inevitably, erroneously regress and digress to Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt, conveniently abbreviated as FUD. This is, to say the least, very unfortunate, giving that almost the whole world live in an interconnecting web of growing (verifiable) knowledge.

When you FUD, you falter. After extended faltering, you come to a grinding halt. After you have halted, you begin to stagnate and finally you will die off.

Belief is dying off, for knowing has rightfully earned its place.

The question about "God", i find irrelevant, a mere grasping in the darkness, when all you have to do, is flick the light switch.

Your idea that there is no scientific proof for God is simply your belief. Since the proof for God is evident in nature, your belief is a religious belief.

Same can be said about me on what, I don't believe anything because I feel like it. There is no scientific proof for god, period. I never said it's impossible for some sort of god to exist, in fact I even said that perhaps super advanced aliens created this universe or perhaps there are a lot of universes, etc etc, possibilities are endless, however the god from the bible can be proven to be wrong.

I believe in god and evolution.
Assume where the first life came on search and how? Science can prove evolution but it doesnot say anything about the source of life. To know the source of life we need to know spirituality and that itself is the minor stairs to god.

Same can be said about you. At least there is proof that God exists. Believing proof is a philosophical thing that takes one into the idea if he should even believe that he exists and thinks. This topic doesn't get into that kind of nit-picking depth.

Let's be honest here, you are not looking for anyone to deconstruct your arguments. Nothing will change your mind because you already made a decision. You convinced yourself that god exists. You are clearly more intelligent than most christians/religious people. You were not convinced just with the bible, you needed more so this ''evidence'' that you found was good enough to trick your brain. Now you think you know god exists, you don't just believe it like the other believers, you have proof, it's not faith.

I only accept truths that can be verified by science.

So you believe supernova explosions to be highly ordered?

For all we know our universe could have exploded from a black hole singularity somewhere else in the cosmos.

Why do you think we have such a big universe, why do we have black holes? All logical to you?

Good luck with your conjectures as well. Ultimately we all live out our beliefs an experiment in real time if you will.

Your belief's whatever they may be are similarly grounded in a priori truths which you cannot prove only assert. All beliefs trace back to the a priori aka assumed truths. Most people are unwilling or unable to actually question their foundations. Even nihilism is an assertion of this kind.
 
For clarity, however, I never said anything about the universe being intuitive. Nor do I agree with your claim that science has made discoveries that show the universe is illogical. I would argue the very opposite that the body of science is gradually revealing an highly ordered and logical creation.

"In principle, we can know all of mathematics. It is given to us in its entirety and does not change. … That part of it of which we have a perfect view seems beautiful, suggesting harmony; that is that all the parts fit together although we see fragments of them only. … Mathematics is applied to the real world and has proved fruitful. This suggests that the mathematical parts and the empirical parts are in harmony and the real world is also beautiful."

- Kurt Gödel

You are playing with the semantics. Logical universe vs universe that can be reduced to logical axioms.

Neither of the statements can be asserted.

BTW, many things that have been discovered by science are neither intuitive nor logical.

Good luck with your conjectures.

Please try to keep up we just went through a long discussion of what is necessary to apply Godel's theorem in the way I have. Af_newbie summed it up immediately above.


To apply Godel's theorem in the way that I did requires me to assume that the universe is ultimately logical aka that it is possible to describe every phenomenon in the universe mathematically. This is an assumption I make in my argument.

You can alternatively choose to believe as af_newbie apparently believes that the universe is illogical and thus globally indescribable with mathematics. Then you would reject my first claim as Godel's theorem would not be applicable.


You are twisting my words out of context again.

Who said anything about a proof? I have laid out a logical argument and like all logical arguments it rests on some basic assumptions.

I never said that I could prove the universe is logical. I said that if the universe is logical then it is incomplete. It is a conditional argument not a proof.

Everything in our lives including the reproducibility of science is consistent with a logical universe. Only at the very boundaries of our knowledge with esoteric phenomena such a black holes and quantum effects so poorly understood that their continue to be multiple competing theories explaining what exactly is happening it is more difficult to say things are logical.

Black holes and poorly understood quantum phenomena strike me as shaky ground to rest a belief in an illogical universe upon but to each his own.

I wish science would work like that.  You just state that something must be possible, and boom you have a proof.

Your claim is basically:  Arithmetic axioms that describe the universe must be possible to exist, therefore one of them is true but cannot be proven.

I am telling you that there is no way of representing the world as a Turing machine.  So your "must be possible to exist" is just wishful thinking on your part.

Same as saying God must be possible to exist.  And your proof is just, well, it is only logical. LOL

BTW, the world as we know it at the quantum level, near or at singularities (Big Bang or Black Holes) is not intuitive nor logical.

PS. Even if you prove that the world is a computer simulation, how does this get you any closer to prove that your (Jewish like) God exists?
You know the one who likes to own slaves, wants to kill gays and is very interested in the Homo Sapiens reproductive system.

Again you are a talking in philosophical terms. Godel's theorem cannot be applied to that, period. There is even a book for it because so many people tried to apply it incorrectly.

Yes and this requires that the universe be fundamentally logical.

In other words every phenomenon in the universe must be describable by some type of mathematical axiom. Such axioms may be totally beyond current human understanding or knowledge but their existence must be possible.

As I said the fact that the universe is ultimately logical is assumed in my argument. I think this is both a reasonable assumption and mostly self evident.

Our limited understanding of quantum mechanics is evidence only of our ignorance and in no way shows that the universe is illogical or indescribable by mathematical axiom.

Just because you can express some physical system using arithmetic, and such physical system is part of the universe, it does not mean that the universe can be used in the Gödel’s incompleteness theorem.  Why not?  Because this theorem applies to the system of arithmetic axioms.

If you want to prove that the universe is an incomplete system that has some axioms that are true but cannot be proven, you have to represent the universe as a system of such axioms, then the use of the theorem would be valid.

You are playing with "capable" and "can" words.

You are misrepresenting my statement. I only need to show that the universe is capable of expressing elementary arithmetic to show that it is incomplete.

I never said the universe can be entirely represented with elementary arithmetic. If the universe can be entirely represented mathematically such math is far beyond human understanding.

Here is the entirety of my first argument.

An Argument for God

Read my previous post.  Our universe cannot be represented by the "elementary arithmetic". We have infinities and quantum effects that we know cannot be represented in a Turing automaton.

The above deduction is invalid.  Full stop.